Filed: Apr. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2276 In re: COREY THOMAS JONES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cr-00530-CMH-2; 1:14-cv-01493-CMH) Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 23, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey Thomas Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Corey Thomas Jones pet
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2276 In re: COREY THOMAS JONES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cr-00530-CMH-2; 1:14-cv-01493-CMH) Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 23, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey Thomas Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Corey Thomas Jones peti..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2276 In re: COREY THOMAS JONES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cr-00530-CMH-2; 1:14-cv-01493-CMH) Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 23, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey Thomas Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Corey Thomas Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has failed to rule on a number of motions and memoranda filed in his prior postconviction proceedings. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. The underlying record demonstrates, however, that final orders have been entered in these postconviction proceedings, and the cited motions are no longer pending. Jones is therefore not entitled to mandamus relief. Although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
